I know wormholes are purely theoretical right now, but I'm

File: wormholegrid500.jpg (38KB, 500x267px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x267px

Additional question relating the distance in a wormhole: Will it always take the shortest possible way through the available additional dimensions? So will it always be straight or can it be winded like on pic related?

Also, how many dimension are available for a wormhole / how many spatial dimensions are really there?

>>8761965
Youtube is a wormhole.

File: sagittal.jpg (39KB, 600x354px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x354px

>>8761965
How much of a brainlet is /sci/ that it can't answer a single one of those questions within 12 hours?

>>8761965
First off: while wormholes are not forbidden by the theory, observation suggests none exist. They wouldn't be like a 10-m circle orbiting Saturn. They would be more like a galaxy.

Now for the theoretical what-if.

1. Yes. Though not an arbitrary number of arbitrary points simultaneously. Don't expect two wormholes a meter apart.

2. No, why!? Say, you have a wormhole from your home to Proxima Centauri. You want to go to your corner store. Of course going there directly would be faster than taking the detour through Proxima Centauri. And yeah, spacetime may be curved in such a way that the distance in 3D will be entirely out of whack with the "direct route".

Imagine you're in mountains. Distance to anywhere in straight line has little in common with how much effort it takes to get there, and what's the distance if you count all the climbing up and down. And then there are caves through these mountains. Some caves go straight through, some curve and go all over, some are a dead-end, and some loop over and you end up at the entrance. Entering the cave doesn't guarantee it's a shortcut. And as your 2D distance, the number of steps over the surface changes with the 3rd dimenshon - how you need to climb the mountains - the caves simply ignore the mountain incline and go straight through.

>>8763197
Thanks. It's really a great way to think of a wormhole as of a tunnel. But is our 3D space more like the Alps or more like the flat Netherlands, where you can't save any distance by building tunnels?

I mean, can we already roughly say how much of a saving the shortest way to Proxima Centauri through all dimensions is? Is it plausible to save 99% of the way? Or 50%? Or can we certainly say that it won't be possible for a wormhole to be much more than 5% shorter than the direct distance through 3D space?

Do these numbers change with the scale we are looking at? E.g. is it plausible to save 50% on the way to Proxima Centauri, but only plausible to save 0.0002% on the way to a Galaxy 100 Mio ly away?

File: WUT.png (595KB, 580x388px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 580x388px

>>8761965
So am I the only one wondering that the space is that is outside the tunnel?

>>8763292
"this" is stuff going on in the 3D dimension, which the 2D-creatures living in the 2D world (depicted by the green mesh) can't perceive. The 2D creatures a like a snail on the green area, they can't leave it or perceive anything that's going on outside of it. If there was no wormhole the snail would have to go all the way through the "U" to reach the other point.

Those pictures just show the general concept of how a lower dimensional space could be curved in a higher dimensional space and how a shortcut through a higher dimension can be possible. Here it's shown with 2D vs 3D for a better understanding. But what im talking about is 3D vs n>3 D, which of course can not be depicted on pictures

>>8763277
Our spacetime is like a flat field that underwent a bombing.

Every star is a deeper or shallower crater. Otherwise, it's almost completely flat. And as result, no tunnels. Just a lot of holes.

>>8763321
So wormholes could not be utilized to save any meaningful distance in interstellar and intergalactic travel?

>>8763342
Unless we discover something that seriously contradicts our current knowledge, or develop a way of creating them - yes, they can't, because there aren't any.

Not because they couldn't exist - just because they happen not to. No spelunking in Netherlands.

>>8763352
I don't think there's any renowned physicist running around claiming he knows for sure that they don't exist. On the other side, there are some thinking it could be even possible to observe some because they might have naturally formed in the early phases of the universe. But we would need do look very far with a high resolution in order to see it, something no current telescope is currently capable of (but a hypothetical one using the sun as a gravitational lens might be)

>>8763392
Red shift, my dear. Red shift.

Wormholes would make the red shift to be all over the place. It would be a mess very hard to miss.

Meanwhile, save for curvature caused by massive bodies and space expansion, the space geometry is very much carthesian, There are simply no curvatures indicative of wormholes. Red shift all throughout the universe is very consistent. Universe is flat as a table, with only tinniest bumps remnant of events shortly after big bang.

Black holes are singularities, that punch a hole in space, but not only would it be very odd if they ever connected to each other, good luck using them for any practical purpose. Once in the black hole, the only way you can ever leave it is as Hawking Radiation.

>>8763292
Negative space
We are in realspace/positive space
Anything between dimensions is negative space

>>8763197
Not OP but I'm curious about something you said; why do we theorize that wormholes would be that large. I understand that galaxy sized worm holes would stand out because their light would be red shifted to fuck in completely weird ways, but why would they be galaxy sized?

>>8761965
my dick can connect to your moms wormhole